Gioco, partita, incontro

I caught The Break on cable one night back in the late 1990's and it became a favorite of mine; a movie I recorded and watch every once in a while for a good story and a good laugh. I will admit that the acting might not be Oscar material (whatever that means) and the plot might be somewhat predictable. However, the relationship between Nick and Joel is really enjoyable to watch evolve (at times the movie reminded me a little bit of a cross between two great sports movies: "Hoosiers" and "Rudy") and there are certain parts of the movie that still make my wife and me laugh out loud. I cannot think of much bad to say about The Break - I highly recommend that anyone who likes movies about sports that are both funny and, dare I say, uplifting, should watch the Break if they can find it, and finding it is not easy.

There's a scene in "The Break" where the tennis coach picks up his protege's racquet in the middle of a match and says, "the strings are loose." Any player who was competing in a nationally-televised match would have had his racquets re-strung before hitting the court. What makes this surprising is that the coach is played by former pro tennis player (and once in the top 40 in the world, at that) Vince Van Patten. He co-wrote the movie, so he should have known better. Such errors occur frequently in "The Break". Chair umpires call out "fault" and "double fault". Real-life umpires don't...linespeople call "out" when a serve is missed. Perhaps these concessions were made to help explain the game to non-tennis players. I kept waiting for a disclaimer to appear on screen saying, "the object of the game is to hit the ball between the white lines..." If you're not a tennis buff, all you're left with is a ho-hum drama featuring every sports film cliche from "The Bad News Bears", "The Karate Kid" and "Rocky". Let's see. There's Joel, the naive young player. Joel's tough-talking father (Martin Sheen) wants him to quit tennis and take over the family business. Van Patten plays a washed-up former tennis star, and Gerritt Graham is on hand as the arrogant opposing coach who isn't averse to bending the rules. Even the female characters are walking cliches. Rae Dawn Chong represents the bad relationship from the coach's past, and Valerie Perrine plays a sexpot (what a shocker!). There's also an awkward subplot involving a tournament referee with an unsettling attraction to the young players. I bet real-life officials were thrilled when they saw that! Having said all that, you still find yourself rooting for Joel. He survives an irresponsible and uncommitted coach (who, you can bet, will be there for Joel at the end), biased officiating and numerous other setbacks to make it to the finals against his nemesis. Guess what? This player trounced Joel the last time they met. ESPN tennis commentators Fred Stolle and Cliff Drysdale play themselves. By the end of the telecast, Stolle has fallen asleep at the microphone. Unless you're a diehard tennis fan, you may find yourself doing the same thing.

This movie was ok. I am a tennis fan, and I have to say that the portrayal of the satellite scene was overly dramatic but did paint a picture of what really does happen. This movie decided to find actors who looked like famous ones, having Robbins played by a Tom Cruise look a like and having Irons played by a Kevin Costner look a like. Even though they were mediocre actors, they were ten times better than Martin Sheen was. He did the typical give me the check effort and really didnt care about the success of this movie. Otherwise, I give this movie a 7 out of 10, a good tennis movie for all fans of the game.

Well keep in mind, I'm saying this as a person who likes tennis a lot, not obsessively or anything though. I saw this movie on HBO when it was fairly new, and something about it stuck with me, I have to give it that. I couldn't, until now, remember the name of it, but the content was in my head.

This movie is riddled with cliché, which is good and bad. There is a reason cliché is what it is...because it appeals to most people in some way. Being it centers around a sport, I can pardon some of that, but only some. What I think makes the movie a little seductive, and thus why I remembered it, are the few things that are hard to ruin... There are themes like a struggle against odds, as well as not judging a book by its cover. The coach has a bad reputation in the movie, and throughout, you see the good parts of him, and that makes you reconsider judgment in general to a point...if you look into that sort of thing.

Aside from that, this movie could have used some sort of twist...any sort, really, to make it a little interesting as well. If you are into tennis at all, you might find yourself in the mood to watch it now and then. Otherwise, you may be searching for something to keep it from being ordinary.

Well, the film was relaxing to watch of course but in the end the viewer is bound to get tired of all the clichés in the story. All the characters, the words they speak and the things they do are utterly predictable and unimaginative. The screenplay is poorly written and the acting is not upto the mark either.

But the most irritating thing is perhaps the technical mistakes about the game of tennis. In this film the umpires call out "double fault", serves are called out by umpires, not linespeople, the deciding last set is played with tie-breakers etc. Why should a film about tennis contain such errors about the game? At least show the facts right!